DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Doesn't this infer ( sorry Sid ) that US webmasters are going out of their way to circumvent US law by actively seeking hosting in other countries knowing what you quoted to be the case regarding the 2257 legislation and where it can, and cannot be applied ?

Just asking ?

 

For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute illegal child pornography.
Violations of the requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to five years for a first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

Obviously the government thinks that it is child pornography and it is serious enough to put people for 5 and 10 years in prison but may be they are wrong since meta in DMOZ doesn't think so.

It is so obvious that even ishfish can see it.

 

The problem is that DMOZ is owned by AOL which is an American corporation. This excuse has been used many times before, sometime the person who registered the domain is in Norway but server is in Texas or server is in Europe but The person is in states. Adult editors change the argument to fit the scenario in order to justify it and some times we should look at the person and some times the server.

It does not matter. American corporation which includes DMOZ MUST obey American law independent of the law in Mongolia.

You can read the thread in internal forum about pedophile listings when Admin clearly writes that DMOZ listings are bind by American law and nothing else.

They do but since they are still committing an illegal act according to American law, those sites can not be listed in DMOZ according to the guideline.

 

Yeah, that's a possibility. I don't have any idea how common it is though.

If this were true, then it would be illegal for someone in the US to look at a website that was hosted in another country and did not have 2257 info on the site. Which is obviously idiotic.

It is illegal to look at child porn in the US, no matter where it is hosted.

It's illegal to host a site in the US and not have 2257 info.

It's not illegal to look at a site without 2257 no matter where it is hosted. It's only illegal for the owner of the site.

Come up with better fluffleglub gworld, this is getting sad and pathetic. You're wrong - get over it.

 

I think that it's clear as far as US webmasters are concerned there is a huge loophole there, easily bypassed.

However, I'm not really sure how an editor dealing with the category would get round it or what the solution is to be completely honest.

Either

1) You ask that every site listed has this declaration and this means that only US sites would ever be listed. Which isn't fair to the rest of the world.

Or

2) You rely on Editor discretion concerning individual sites.

I cannot see any way around it as Editors can't be expected to know Danish laws on underage internet activities. Does anyone else have any constructive ideas as to what could be done ? I'm scratching my head really.

 

Or

3) You (editors) don't worry about it.

This isn't the same as child pornography laws where the laws actually concern the people viewing the content (something that odp editors do need to be concerned about).

The 2257 laws are between US hosted websites and the US government and no one else. If they don't comply, they get in trouble. End of story.

[added]

Don't let gworld trick you in to believing that this is actaully an issue. It isn't. The only reason he is pushing it is because he likes to claim that the ODP lists child pornography. When pushed for examples, the best he can do is to find a site that doesn't have 2257 info and claim that the absense of it makes the site child pornography (which even by itself is wrong). When the site is shown to not be hosted in the US, and therefor not subject to US regulations, he is trying to further cloud the non-issue by (apparently) claiming that any site viewed from the US has to have 2257 info no matter where it is hosted (which is obviously a pathetic attempt to cover his ass after making up stories).

 

No matter how you twist it. It is illegal according to US law. DMOZ as US corporation is bind by US law as clearly wriiten by Admin in the internal forum.

You might think that the law in Mongolia suits you better but DMOZ still have to obey US law and can not list web sites that are illegal because they do not have 2257 statement.


Just to be sure that you have not missed the point again. For all practical purpose in DMOZ, illegality is defined according to US law and not the law in Europe, Asia or Africa.

 

spin spin spin

That's already been addressed buddy.

Exactly what law is being broken when a site in Denmark does not post 2257 information?

 

So that certain someone in Colorado should be prepared to show documentation as required by 2257 -- unless the images on the site "are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995" (apparently the 2257 provision contains some large loopholes).

As sidjf has said repeatedly, the 2257 requirements apply to webmasters, not entities (including but not limited to dmoz and this forum) that publish links to URLs.

 

Huh?!?

I quote a post and it disappears before my post appears!?!

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=888011&postcount=1759 ?

 

But you've already demonstrated repeatedly that you understand very little about anything of significance, Mr. Adult editor. Weak, sidjf, very weak.

So you're quite comfortable with having DMOZ promote and endorse sites that may be in contravention of the law and at best appeal to prurient interests in material that attempts to appeal to those interested in child pornography, orlady?

Don't let sidjf, who has a vested interest in promoting pornography, legal, borderline illegal, or illegal, in DMOZ, trick you into believing this is NOT an issue. It is.

If ANY editor cannot by now understand that the issue begins with legality but does not end there, that the overriding issue should be social and moral responsibility, and that there have been demonstrated direct links between promoting sites like this and the commission of sexual assaults against children and minors, s/he is never going to get it.

Consult some of the publications of people like Professor William L. Marshall of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, if you'd like confirmation.

 

What is quite evident is DMOZ lists sites that "may" contain child porn, including sites that "allude" that they contain child porn. In this case, they are using the word "lolita" which is a popular term among child pornographers, because it refers to a novel about an underage girl having sex with an adult.

In addition, the site mentioned above is profiting from people who search dmoz (and google) for things like "lolita sex" and "lolita". Therefore, like it or not, dmoz is contributing to helping people find material that may contain underage people posing nude or engaging in sexual activity.

In addition, the activities of metas and editors at DMOZ are highly secretive, and we do not know if there are individuals that "volunteer" at dmoz that are profiting from the use of DMOZ to promote pornographic materials that may contain children.

This combination of secrecy and continued promotion of these materials can only lead to continuing speculation.

 

Can you guaranty that none of those models are 14,15, 16 or 17? If not then why do you prefer, not to worry about it, break the US laws and put minors in danger so you can list these sites?

Obviously listing these sites is more important to you than welfare of minors.

Can you explain how did you come up with such interesting conclusion?
If this is true, doesn't this mean that sites that list child porn, terrorism or drug related material are also not responsible? What does it mean in guideline when it states the illegal sites can not be listed.
I must say that I am not surprised with your posting and supporting the stand that DMOZ should not care about the welfare of minors, you have a solid record of being on the wrong side of every moral question.

 

We need to Digg this thread!!!

 

I would digg if you guys are game.

 

How do we do it?
(sorry, it was just an idea that I don't know how to implement)
If I get a few bad rep points, I don't care. This kind of stuff needs to be made known.

 

Let me help you out there, Dave. Well....wait a minute. What have we here? Someone has already taken the time to do this for us previously. Look at the first result of this search:

http://www.digg.com/search?search=dmoz+child+porn&submit=Submit

Digg it, guys.

 

Notice how gworld quickly changed his arguement to something completely different once he realized there was no way to weasle his way out of his previous lies.

Now the arguement is that a porn site that isn't hosted in the US should not be listed because there is no way for us to know if the site has child porn on it or not.

News flash - 2257 info on a site doesn't guarantee anything at all.

And what about all of the porn sites from a couple of years ago before this law existed? Did they all contain child porn too, just because there wasn't a bit of text on the bottom of them about 2257 laws?

It's pathetic what a few disgruntled webmasters will stoop to just because they have a vendetta against the ODP. Child pornography is a serious topic - not something to be thrown about at whim just because you can't get a site listed. All you are doing is clouding serious issues. You should be so proud of yourselves.

 

For those interested: http://digg.com/technology/DMOZ_Supports_Child_Porn_